[From Rick Marken (2007.01.18.1235)]
Bill Powers (2007.01.18.0600 MST)--
I think the present discussion, if we may stretch the meaning of that term, is an example of two people (or more) perceiving the same things in different ways and, as a result, coming into conflict.
Yes. It's a conflict over how we would describe the same situation.
But now, when you look back, you see me saying that all differences of perception cause conflict, which is how you saw it the first time
Not true. Even saying that some differences in perception cause conflict is misleading. And it is misleading to say that controlling different perceptions causes conflict (I am controlling the perceptions of the movements of 10 fingers -- 10 different perceptions -- sans conflict). Only when control of the different perceptions -- like the perception of being thin and the perception of eating tasty food -- leads to inconsistent settings of references for lower level perceptions -- like eating ice cream -- is there conflict.
I was focusing on conflict at the level of the conflict -- saying that a conflict results from inconsistent settings for the same perception (the person wants to eat and not eat ice cream) -- and correctly describing it at that level. You claim that you and others were focusing on the higher level cause of the conflict -- the different higher level perceptions which are controlled by setting the inconsistent references for the lower level perceptions -- but, if that is the case, you were doing a piss poor job of that since it is _very_ misleading to say that controlling different perceptions (even specifying that you mean _higher level ones) is the cause of conflict because sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't.
There is nothing inherently conflict producing about controlling different higher level perceptions. This is demonstrated by the fact that we control many different higher level perceptions all the time without any conflict occurring at the lower levels. If you had written a paper for my class saying what you did about conflict I would give it a C or a D (giving you partial credit because at least you did demonstrate some knowledge of hierarchical control).
, and you accuse me of changing my view to pander to those less intellectually fortunate and in need of my aid. That's why I cited the page in MSOB, to correct your mistaken impression that I have changed my mind on this matter.I didn't. Or do you think I went back and changed MSOB to support what I am saying now?
I said you were pandering because I _knew_ that you had correctly described conflict in MSOB as inconsistent references set for the same lower level perception by systems controlling different higher level perceptions. I don't think of pandering as changing your mind; I think of it as you saying people understand your view of conflict when they don't. You have done the same kind of "pandering" in other PCT related areas as well.
I don't think you purposefully lie, by the way, so maybe it's not really correct to call what you do "pandering". I don't know if there is one word for it. But what you do is try your best to perceive a correct understanding of your work from acolytes. You don't do this with everyone -- you haven't done it with Carver and Scheier because, though they have used your work they have never solicited your approval; they are not acolytes -- you do this only with acolytes.
It's OK with me; you can do whatever way you like; but now that I'm teaching a class I am in a position where I can try to teach what I consider a correct (and useful) version of PCT (which is the way it is presented in all of your wonderful works). I am reluctant to point students to this discussion group because your approach on this net is just not regularly at the academic level I'm going for (sometimes you are stupendously brilliant, particularly when dealing with non-acolytes, but I can't count on it; so the net is great for me but I think it wouldn't be good for students).
Do you understand how this important word "can" escaped your notice?
to which Marken replies, not having understood what Nevin said,
Yes, it's a contrast of references, not ways of perceiving.
That addressed your misunderstanding that Bruce, and earlier I, said that differences in perception always lead to conflict. They CAN lead to conflict... There is a difference between
All conflicts result from higher systems with different perceptions
and
Higher systems with different perceptions all result in conflicts.
Yes, that is an important difference. But it is irrelevant because Bruce and you (and everyone else) was talking about conflict resulting from different perceptions _not_ conflict resulting from _higher level systems_ controlling different perceptions. That's why this silliness about the word "can" escaping my notice is irrelevant.
Bruce said "conflict _can_ result when two control systems control perceptual variables which are functions of the same environmental variables". What's important about that statement is the implication that conflict results from two systems _at the same level_ controlling perceptions of the same environmental variables. Bruce is clearly not talking about conflict resulting from higher level systems setting incompatible references for a lower level perception. He is saying that conflict _could_ result from two systems simultaneously controlling variables which are functions of the same environmental variables. I actually didn't disagree with this; I just clarified it, saying that the conflict results (or is expressed) in this case only when the functions of those environmental variables are non-orthogonal (highly correlated).
I guess Bruce got upset about the "can" because he thought I was implying that he didn't understand this. But I was actually just clarifying his correctly noted conditional: conflict can result when two control systems control perceptual variables which are functions of the same environmental variables, and this _can_ only happen when the functions are non-orthogonal. The stuff about _can_ referring to the fact that conflicts _can_ but don't necessarily result from higher level systems controlling different perceptions is your contribution. If that's what Bruce was talking about, then he did a pretty poor job of communicating it. A D level job at best.
Bruce: The strict father model is a hierarchical arrangement of moral authority from God...
In the nurturing parent model, the parents (if there are two) share household responsibilities...
Rick: These could be different higher order perceptions...
That is what Bruce just said. The conflict results from two different control systems controlling different perceptions by choosing conflicting reference levels for lower-order variables. That is what I was talking about and what Bruce was talking about. What were you talking about?
If that is what Bruce and you were saying, then why did he say what he said rather than what he was saying? When I get to the section on conflict in my course and I want them to learn that conflict results from two different control systems controlling different perceptions by choosing incompatible reference levels for the _same_lower-order percpetion I will probably say something like "conflict results from two different control systems controlling different perceptions by choosing incompatible reference levels for the same lower-order perception" rather than "The strict father model is a hierarchical arrangement of moral authority from God...In the nurturing parent model, the parents (if there are two) share household responsibilities...".
And anyway, Bruce WAS talking about a difference in perceptions resulting in setting incompatible references at a lower level. That's what a conflict is, isn't it?
I'm sorry, I wasn't really trying to misinterpret Bruce (or you). I guess I'm just too dumb to understand your crystal clear prose. But since I am the teacher, the students in my class will have to write down to my level. If I want them to understand that conflicts result from two different control systems controlling different perceptions by choosing incompatible reference levels for the _same_ lower-order perception they are going to have to say something like that rather than, say, something like "conflicts result when people see things differently". I think they could have learned the latter from People magazine and I want it to be worth their while to have bought that expensive MSOB;-)
You were the only one making that misinterpretation, Rick.
Apparently. I'm not that bright but I am very sexy;-)
I have no idea what you mean when you say "conflict usually _doesn't_ result from a difference in perceptions at the higher levels that generate the reference signals for lower level systems."
What it means is that higher level systems control many different perceptions and conflict rarely results. When there is conflict, it is a result of higher level systems, which are controlling different perceptions, setting incompatible references for lower level perceptions. But, as I said above, there is nothing inherently conflict producing about controlling different perceptions. What matters, in terms of conflict, is that the higher level systems are setting incompatible references for a lower level system.
It's not the fact that the higher level systems are controlling different perceptions that matters -- all of these systems control different perceptions -- it's that control of those different perceptions is requiring that incompatible references be set for the same lower level perception. There's nothing inherently conflict producing about the fact that one higher level systems is controlling for, say, attractiveness and another is controlling for a proper diet, as long as these two different perceptions (attractiveness and diet) don't require incompatible settings for a lower level perception like eating.
Perhaps what you meant to write was "A difference in perceptions at the higher levels usually _doesn't_ result in conflict." What you did say was that a conflict usually doesn't result from a difference in higher-level perceptions," meaning that it usually arises in some other way, and that is what I say is false. It usually DOES arise that way. However, most of the time. this overlap of higher-order outputs does not result in conflict.
Right. I said it incorrectly and you are correct to correct me! I get a D on that one. Thanks. Ain't communication great!
When you read "conflict as a result of different perceptions" , you simply don't see the same meaning I see. I certainly don't see "result of" as implying that is it only the difference in perceptions that causes the conflict, with no intermediate steps, whereas apparently you do. To me, one thing results from another if there is some sort of connection between them. If I meant a direct connection, I'd say one thing directly determines the other.
I just think it's non-essential and misleading. It implies that the difference in higher order perceptions is the essential problem in a conflict, and it's not. The problem in my eating example is not that the person wants to control different perceptions -- appearance and diet -- by eating. When a conflict exists, the problem is that the particular values of the two different higher level controlled perceptions -- appearance and diet -- require incompatible goals for a single lower level perception: amount eaten. So the way to fix conflicts is not to try to get a person to stop controlling different perceptions and start controlling the same one; the way to fix things is to find a way to control those different perceptions in a way that doesn't require incompatible settings for the lower level perception. This could be done by going up a level, figuring out why the references for appearance and diet are where they are and then figuring out new values to want -- like resetting attractiveness to "full figured" -- and the conflict could be solved with the person still controlling appearance and diet, just at different levels.
OK, everyone is wrong but you.
I'm not saying everyone is wrong or that I am right. You were all certainly way too unclear for me. I may be wrong, for all I know. But I am now teaching a class on PCT so I am thinking like a teacher. And, as the teacher, I would (as I said) have to give you all Cs or Ds on your descriptions of conflict. This may by because you don't understand it (I'm sure that's not true in your case) or because you can't communicate in a way that shows me that you understand conflict in the same way I do. I don't know. But all I can do as a teacher is read what you write and see, based on what you said, whether you seem to understand what's going on in the same way I do or not.
But that is not what any of us said: we said that conflict can result from seeing the same situation differently.
That strikes me as a vague and almost useless definition of conflict. It doesn't capture what I consider to be the essential components of conflict as revealed by PCT, which is that higher level systems are setting incompatible references for a single lower level perceptions. Again, if you were in my class and that were the extent of what you could say about conflict you would get a D on your paper (it's pass/no pass so you would not pass; you need a C or better;-))
By the way, one of the reasons for the low grade is that there was overwhelming disagreement with my description of conflicts as being the result of different references for the _same_ perception. If all of you understood conflict so well, why not just say "Yeah, that's true at the level at which the conflict is expressed" or something like that. I expect my students to know that "controlling the same perception relative to differnet references" is, in fact, a correct description of how a conflict is _expressed_. If my students wanted to say that conflicts don't result from controlling for the same perception they'd better be pretty quick to assure me that they know that this applies to the _higher level_ systems setting the incompatible references for the _same_ perception controlled by the lower level systems; they had better know that the conflict occurs when there are two different goals for the state of the _same_ perception.
Your bias becomes obvious when you scold me for not understanding that all the talk of "different perceptions" presumably referred to the perceptions controlled by "higher level" systems (a dubious proposition at best) and you don't scold the others (and yourself) for not understanding that my talk of "the same perception" referred to the perceptual variable in conflict; the one for which incompatible references are being set.
You are sticking to your original incorrect interpretations of what the others meant and insisting that we have changed our minds when we haven't.
All I know about what's on your minds is what I read. And everything I have read about conflict from the participants in this discussion (except some of your comments in the last two posts and, of course, everything you have written about conflict in B:CP and MSOB) is D level material. If you like it, that's fine. But remind me not to take your course or recommend it to my students;-)
Best
Rick
···
---
Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400